Administration Proposes Opening Vast Protected Areas to Builders

By KEITH SCHNEIDER

Published: August 3, 1991

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2—
After months of argument among four Federal agencies and the White House, the Bush Administration has proposed rules intended to open millions of acres of low-lying forests, prairie, bottom lands and other environmentally sensitive areas to development, a White House official said today.

The proposed rules are to be published within two weeks for public comment, and to be effective they would have to survive Congressional review and a likely challenge from environmental groups.

Perhaps 100 million acres of such land have been protected from industrial intrusions since 1989 under a set of broad regulations that seemed to support President Bush's 1988 campaign pledge to preserve these wetlands, as they are collectively known.

Among the areas the proposed rules could open for development are acres of temporary ponds, or "prairie potholes," that were formed by depressions on the northern Great Plains and in the Middle West and that serve as rest points for migrating ducks and geese, environmental groups said today.

Precisely how much land would be opened to development is not known.

When environmental groups endorsed the 1989 policy, they said it barred development along the coastal areas of Long Island, forests in New Jersey, tidal zones in New England and miles of wet and not-so-wet ground around the country.

The 1989 regulations have been attacked as too stringent by farmers, industrial companies and builders who have been prevented from developing land that appeared to be dry but was classified as wetland. Some of the nation's wealthiest and most effective lobbying organizations vowed to change the law.

A White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said today that central to the new rules is a new definition of what the Government now believes a wetland is. Under the rules as written for 1989, wetlands were defined as areas that had mucky or peat-based soil, were havens to specific plants that thrived in moist areas or had water within 18 inches of the surface for at least seven days during the growing season.

The new rules would define a wetland as having standing water on it for 15 consecutive days during the growing season or have surface soil saturated for 21 consecutive days. The new rules would also establish a formula for measuring the species of vegetation on the land, with greater weight given to species that are known to grow well in saturated soil and giving less weight to species that can grow in wet or dry ground.

Industrial and building groups that have lobbied for the change said they were pleased by the proposed rules, which were first described today in an article in The Washington Post. 'In the Right Direction'

"It's a policy that is moving in the right direction," said J. Michael Luzier, director of environmental regulation of the National Association of Home Builders in Washington. "Under the old rules we regulated an awful lot of land that was wetland in name only. A lot of it was indistinguishable from regular upland."

Conservation groups, though, are angry about the potential change.

"Basically, we think it's awful," said Pam Goddard, a conservation assistant at the Sierra Club in Washington. "President Bush has reneged on his promise of no net loss on wetlands and we are going to try to hold him accountable."

After the proposed rules are published in the Federal Register within two weeks, there will be 60 days for comment, after which they can be adopted as proposed or with changes made.

Environmental groups said today that they would fight to have the policy changed again. "This redefinition could mean 10 million acres of wetlands destroyed," said Lisa Weil, policy director of American Oceans Campaign, a national environmental group in Santa Monica, Calif. "What they are saying is that some dry areas should not be classified as wetlands. But some of the drier area, like the prairie potholes, are the most important ecologically."

Under the regulations, which are contained in the Clean Water Act that was passed in 1972, any effort to fill in or build on or otherwise conduct business that would alter the landscape of a wetland is prohibited without first obtaining a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Protecting Fish and Birds

The action was taken to preserve land that serves as breeding grounds for fish and birds, rest areas for geese and ducks, provides habitat for plants and serves as a natural flood and storm control system.

The Bush Administration has been seeking to rescind the strict definition of wetlands contained in the 1989 regulations because land that appeared to be dry was covered by the rules. Those regulations were set by a committee of scientists and technical experts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the Corps of Engineers.

Top officials of these agencies, along with the White House, agreed that the definition needed to be altered because they felt it was too restrictive, but differed sharply over what new definition should be. The matter was taken up by the White House Council on Competitiveness, a six-member group of Administration officials led by Vice President Dan Quayle. Loose Definition Urged

Several officials close to the talks said Mr. Quayle and other top officials urged the group to adopt a loose definition that would please business interests. The officials said William K. Reilly, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, fought for new rules that were not as sharp a departure from the 1989 regulations.

The differences between the two sides led to an impasse and the Vice President was prepared to ask the President to make the decision.

The White House official said today that Mr. Quayle and Mr. Reilly met on Monday and that by Wednesday a compromise was reached.

"It was a unanimous recommendation of the council," said the official. "The questions are resolved. It's obvious that there will be fewer acres protected than there have been. It's also clear that the President's pledge will be preserved. This preserves land that really is wetland."

Photo: Rules intended to open millions of acres of wetlands to development could affect areas like Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. (Jim Wilson/The New York Times) (pg. 25)